The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-05
DECISION IN THE SMITH SUIT,


The Democratic View OF 1t Does Not Fore
tell Any Weakening of the schemers.
In the Democratic conference of Monday night
The probabilities of Supreme Court decision
adverse to tbs pretensions of Green Smith were
thoroughly discussed Arrangements were made
however. to sustain the aspiring Senator from
Jennings at all hazards. A decision even COW
BRING every point the claimants attorneys threw
into the case, outside of that of jurisdiction,
would not have changed the determination Of
The political guerriilas in this respeci. 1t must
be borne in mind that Smith, at the outset.
found no favor among the Mcdonald men, and
Mt this time, if they could throw him overheard
they would not hesitate to do it, although it
might result in passing the Jason Brown in
huence over to the senatorial faction led by Gov
ernor Gray. But withal a possibility appears
that after Smith is made useful in carrying out
the tricksters' designs in depriving the incoming
Lieutenant governor of all power to appoint COM
mittees or to manage the Senate under existing
rules, he will, after seeming resistance retire
as presiding officer On the other hand, it is
asserted that Smith will be retained as acting
Acknowledgment until Colonel Robertson is
forced to quo warranto proceedings, when it is
Expected the Supreme Court, having chance to
consider the issue in another form will render an
opinion favorable to the ambition Of the Jen-
nings county Senator. There were Democrats,
yesterday, who poorly concealed their wrath at
their failure, with all partisan advantage Sec
rotary of State Myers afforded the case. to con-
vince the Supreme Court that Smith ought to
have an injunction. But others were more
decent in an inclination to let the question drop.
and accept Colonel Robertson as the Lieutenant
governor without further turmoil or trickery.
One remarked Green Smith went to the SUI
preme Court for moral support, and, having
failed, he will doubtless go to another tribunal
for moral sympathy" 1t is only among the poll
ticians that Smith finds his Endorsement.
and, as suggested, it is probable some
OF these are weakening, as the Mcdonald
faction is falling into the belief that Smith can
be dispensed with as a factor in the senatorial
light beyond his vote Whether this will occur
directly after Colonel Robertson is formally and
officially declared the Lieutenant-governor is
not known, but hardly, as the Democratic SEN
ators are expected to adhere to the order adopt
ed some time ago. that they shall take no part in
the canvass of the vote req uired by the Consti
tuition. When the House Is ready to make the
canvass, aud informs the Senate
to that effect. the Democrats of the latter BODY.
with Green Smith in the chair. and probably ia
son Brown as Secretary, will refuse to respond
to the invitation. Up to that day the plan as
originally laid down, will be pursued After
wards their action is contingent on certain events
likely to arise, which looks to the unseatinp of
Republican Senators without cause or reason, if
ho in
vantage Of the Democrats The Democratic
Senators are under the lash and at every crack
of it thaza*s not the slightest symptom of COM
plant.
1t was yesterday morning that the Supreme
Court handed down its decision affirming that of
Judge Ayres. 1t was written by Chief Justice
Elliott and received the unanimotis assent Of the
bench. After reviewing the facts alleged in the
complaint the decision reads
Tine question which faces MS at the thresh-
old i one pf controlling Influence, and the
answer to II must rule our decision. The cues
ton OF jurisdiction is always one of Importance
but In no case Is it more important than where
as here. the extraordinary remedy OF Injunction
Is invoked to control the acts of officers holding
algh places In the government of the State In
cases like this, where the judicial department is
asked to enjoin officer OF a different branch |
OF the government from performing an official |
act the question is always of dominating |
{orce, and sometimes of perplexing difficulty
pn the one hand no consideration OF policy |
or convenience should induce the courts
to assume to exercise a power that |
does not belong to them nor on tha |
other hand, should any consideration of that |
Kind, or OF any kind, induce them to surrender a |
power which it is their duty TO exercise The as.
sumption of power not vested in them would |
be violation of the Constitution, since it would
% an assumption Of q power conferred upon
haF ~ nf he
disturb the system of cheeks and balances which |
the Constitution has so carefully construed, and |
which the courts have ever guarded with care.
ne question is as important as any that the
courts encounter 10 the whole range of judicial
investigation and it is always regarded as one of
great dehcacy, TO be considered with care and
disposed of with caution. The question of iur-
lsaiction Is never III any case technical or sub
ordinate one. and certainly it is not so in the
one before u.s.
1t often becomes question, in cases Of The
genera class TO which the present belongs
whether suit for injunction can be maintained
IN any case where the title to a public Office is
involved and by many courts it is held that in
such cases there is jurisdiction Foster We
Moore 80 Kansas, 4S3; Gilroy VS.. Appeal 100
Pa, ST., 5; Stone vs.. Wetmore 50 Georgia chi.
Kilpatrick VS.. Smith. u Louisiana, 347, Jones
Hobbs, Go N H., 1l9; Moulton VS. Reed 81
Ala, $780, Beecher VS.. Robinson. sc, l; People
vs. Dreper, q Ark, 265; Sheridan VS. Collins,
10 Ill. 26i; People vs. Breese, ILL.,, 402 Hasele.
mas vs Reeves, II Pa. ST. 800; Commonwealth
vs.. Baxter, IS Pa St. 263 State VS. Granor, n.
J. 81; Peck VS.. Weddell IL Ohio gil
'Bnt the case before US is narrowed TO a small
compass by the provisions of our Constitution
and our statutes. and it is not necessary for us
10 enter into the broad field covered by the
cases to which we have referred We abstain.
therefore, from any discussion Of these cases.
ror do We deem 1t Necessary to determines the
collation. OF the remedy Of mandamus TO that of
ia M No |
sf the ruling question as ii has been presented.
nor is 1t necessary 10 determine whether the III
tle to an Office may be tried for an action for
rnancamus All that We are required to decide:
an tnat - proper Tor us to decide, and all that
we do decide Is, that injunction will not lie in
such case as the one presented To us hv the |